House of Commons Hansard #50 of the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was producers.

Topics

Livestock IndustryEmergency Debate

11:15 p.m.

Bloc

Richard Nadeau Bloc Gatineau, QC

Mr. Speaker, I have to admit that, like my colleague from Malpeque, I found the comments of the hon. members for Selkirk—Interlake and Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound very enlightening.

They spoke openly about a situation they are familiar with and in which many hog and cattle producers find themselves. I could have listened to their comments for many more hours because they were very interesting, almost as interesting as those of my Bloc colleagues. I could have listened to them for many hours.

I would very much like the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound to educate our Quebec Conservative members about this situation.

We listened just now to the member from Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, and his views are quite the opposite and—

Livestock IndustryEmergency Debate

11:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

The hon. member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound has 30 seconds for his answer.

Livestock IndustryEmergency Debate

11:15 p.m.

Conservative

Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON

Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the comments that my hon. colleague from the Bloc was referring to or who said them.

I know things are not fine out there. There has been some help but there is no doubt that there needs to be more. As long as I am over here, I will keep doing my part. Our minister is doing his part. He knows what is going on and he is definitely dedicated to fixing the problem. I would ask all members in the House to work with him and get the job done.

Livestock IndustryEmergency Debate

11:20 p.m.

Liberal

Robert Thibault Liberal West Nova, NS

Mr. Speaker, I want thank the Chair for having allowed the emergency debate this evening recognizing the importance that it is to the country, in particular the rural areas all across the country that are going through a very difficult turmoil in relation to agriculture, particularly in the hog production and cattle industry.

Before I get too far into my remarks I would like to advise the Chair that I will be sharing my time with the member for Huron—Bruce.

I am from Nova Scotia. Most of my riding is in the Annapolis Valley and Digby county where there are a lot of pork producers and quite a few cattle producers. The time now is an hour later in the Annapolis Valley, so knowing the time that the farmers start their work in the morning I do not believe very many of them would be up to listen to my words this evening.

Unfortunately, a lot of them are just returning from work now. It will be 9:30 in their homes, their apartments or their boarding situations in Alberta having had to leave their farms in Nova Scotia to go out west to find work because their pork operations are closed. Most of them have gone under. A few of them continue to operate, culling their herds or getting rid of their herds because, as was said by the last two members and many members this evening, the cost of production does not meet the sales prices. They cannot continue in that type of atmosphere unaided.

There does not seem to be a light. There is not a light that they can afford to go to. They are heavily indebted. They have been operating for quite some time in a situation where cost does not meet revenue.

The Government of Nova Scotia has come on many occasions with some short term aid, forgivable loans and all sorts of assistance to keep them just afloat but it has not proven fruitful.

These are very entrepreneurial families. They are family operations. They are not the large farms that we would see in other parts of the country but they are very important economic generators in the Nova Scotia context. Some of them have gone into the production of weaner pigs where they raise small pigs because of the high genetic quality that we have in Nova Scotia, as we do across the country. They export to farmers in the United States who raise them and put them to market.

That was quite promising for some time but as more and more farmers in Canada get into difficulty, more and more weaner pigs go into the U.S. and that depresses the price. It is a buyer's market. Then we see protectionist measures happening in the United States. Certificate of origin labelling for some weaner pigs is the threat now. Therefore, I do not think anyone sees that as the long term solution. What the hope is that perhaps this will take them through and some of them will be able to survive.

However, I think we need to be honest with ourselves. If we are going to be a nation that can feed itself, if Atlantic Canada, which has the absolute capacity to feed itself in terms of pork and beef, is going to survive in that industry, then there needs to be some strategic thinking.

I agree with the members who spoke of the long term strategic thinking. There cannot always be ad hoc programs and the farmers should not always be on their knees. We need to have a plan.

However, the best plan will not bring the industry through the crisis at this time because the situation is so dire. Many have spoken of the situations that have led us there. It is true that we have had the rising Canadian dollar, or the depressed American dollar, and an increase in the cost of feed, and we do not begrudge that to the farmers who grow wheat and corn. The increase in the ethanol industry has contributed. However, we must recognize those factors as factors that will remain in the future and we need to find a way to address that and to aid the farmers in being competitive in that situation.

We should consider seriously, if we can use our tax structure and we can use different methods within our country to encourage the production of ethanol, thereby increasing the cost of corn, for example, then could we not also consider some sort of indirect assistance?

I do not like to use the term subsidy because perhaps we are being listened to by our trading partners, but I think that is what we are talking about, a subsidy on feed, on transport and on those things. We have done it in the past for various reasons. Some of those things have been removed but we need to look at the situation that we are in now so we can look at the long term sustainability.

We have to recognize, as the House has done tonight, that it is an emergency in our country. The federal government has to work quickly with the provincial governments to bring us through this time. Excellent recommendations have been made by both the Senate agricultural committee and the House agricultural committee that the government can work with. These are multi-partisan recommendations.

In the Annapolis Valley there are family operations in the slaughter and meat processing business that are at huge risk right now. Larsen's has operated for a long time and hundreds of families depend on that company in the processing end and also the farmers, but now the slaughter side of the business is at a trickle.

It was always operated by the Larsen family which worked very well with the production side, with the agriculture side. When there was trouble the Larsen family itself would subsidize the farmers. It would assist them with so much money per pork to make sure the producers could be there for the long term. It was good for that business because it would have supply and it was good for the producers.

That type of arrangement is very difficult now. For one thing the Larsen family's operations have been purchased by Maple Leaf and we all know what is happening to Maple Leaf in Canada. Most of its operations are being closed down or discontinued and it is operating out of one area. That is its long term strategic plan. We are hoping that the Larsen operation will be operated independently because it is a well-recognized brand, well liked by the market and it will be able to continue.

I could say the same of Armstrong, which is operated by the Armstrong family and continues to work very well with cattle producers. It is facing the challenges everyone else is. Bowlby Quality Meats is another family operation. These pressures are on everyone.

The promise the Conservatives made to the agricultural sector has not been kept. Many producers listened to the current Prime Minister and felt there was a saviour, a saving grace, that there would be some huge changes, but they have not seen them. All they have seen is an ideological approach. They see it on the Wheat Board and they are very much afraid that on supply management the same kind of logic, the same ideology will be used at one point.

We know the Prime Minister once referred to supply management as a “socialist scheme for price fixing”, exactly the same ideology that he sees in the Wheat Board. It is not for me from Atlantic Canada from Digby County to say whether or not there should be a Wheat Board. The point is that because of ideology everything is put in place to kill the Wheat Board rather than letting farmers decide. Farmers know at some point that same pressure can come on supply management in poultry and in dairy, but that would be a matter for debate on another day.

Today we are talking specifically of the pork and cattle industries. When we look at the cattle industry in Atlantic Canada, it is nowhere near what we see in western Canada. It is a very domestic industry, family operated, small farms, but hugely important. It is hugely important on the side of the dairy producers because the cull cows are part of the production they depend on; that generally is the profit out of their industry. When we see the collapse in the prices it has a huge impact on them. We see it again on the feed side.

The other thing we have done very well in our pork industry is we have great genetic breeds. When the market was going to lean pork, Canada produced the best pigs. We still do, but the market changes. The market evolves. I am not sure that right now we are ready for what is in demand in the international market, as we should be. Perhaps that would be a great area to consider in our transition.

The member opposite talked a lot about assistance or working on trade deals. We must recognize that with our principal trading partner, there are huge protectionist measures that are happening there that are not going to be alleviated tomorrow, that will continue. That is going to be very difficult.

In closing, I thank the Speaker for having recognized this as an emergency. I thank all who participated this evening. I particularly want to thank the last two speakers from the governing side who I think were quite honest and participated quite honestly in the debate. I look forward to questions.

Livestock IndustryEmergency Debate

11:25 p.m.

Conservative

Bev Shipley Conservative Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for West Nova for his comments, because many of them are true in terms of the significance of agriculture. I believe, as I think he does, that the sovereignty of agriculture is as important to this country as any other factor in it, whether it is our military, defence or anything else.

A nation has to be able to feed itself. Because of that, I believe we have to work, all parties, with our minister to get through a very complex issue. If it were not complex, it would have been fixed many times in the past. It would have been fixed back in the BSE crisis. It would have been fixed in some of the other crises that we have had.

Not only has our government done a lot, but we also need some help to know where to go with the next step, not only from our producers but through what my colleague might suggest. I would ask him if he has some other creative ideas or solutions, something we can look at that can take us forward for the long term also. This is not just about the short term. My producers are saying to me that they are expecting not $50 a hog but something that will make them sustainable over a period of time.

Livestock IndustryEmergency Debate

11:30 p.m.

Liberal

Robert Thibault Liberal West Nova, NS

Mr. Speaker, the member makes a point about going through the BSE crisis. It was a very important crisis. It was a determining point. We saw our agriculture sector, including pork producers but mostly cattle producers, suffering greatly at that time.

Right now if we look at the pork industry, for example, it has gone beyond suffering. It is into dying, where there is no way that the farms can continue. In my area, I am seeing farms going out of business. I am seeing young people, the third generation on those farms, having to go to other parts of the country to find work.

I do not regret those young women and men leaving and going to other parts of the country if they are going for fortune or adventure, but they are not going by choice. There is no chance now. They do not see a chance of their farms succeeding, farms that were built over 40 and 50 years.

I think we have to do the long term thing. Perhaps we cannot keep operating in the future exactly as we have been. To be able to do that, we must have quick measures, working with the provinces, because the solution is not the same everywhere. I think that if we look at the work of the Senate and the work of the House agriculture committee, we can find those elements. I think we can have quick response negotiations and get by those problems that we have on the transfer of money and the rapidity with which the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food can turn the money over to Canadians.

It has to happen now. The banks will not wait forever. I see families who are in debt with the loan boards in their provinces and are at risk of losing their very homes.

Livestock IndustryEmergency Debate

11:30 p.m.

Bloc

Richard Nadeau Bloc Gatineau, QC

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from West Nova on his excellent speech. All of Acadia must be very proud this evening. And so am I, even though, sadly, I have no Acadian roots.

That said, let us talk about packaging and advertising. To ensure that the packaging of our beef and pork products is more appropriate and that we can buy our own products here—I realize that there is free trade and international trade—it seems to me that it would help our producers if the packaging showed that the contents were from Quebec or Canada, instead of where the packaging itself was made. The same with advertising. Without becoming isolationists, we should at least show enough pride to say that the product in question was produced here. This way, we would be helping our producers. I would like to hear my hon. colleague on that.

Livestock IndustryEmergency Debate

11:30 p.m.

Liberal

Robert Thibault Liberal West Nova, NS

Mr. Speaker, consumers must have a real choice. If they want to support the agricultural producers from their area, they must have some way of knowing if a product they see in their local market is truly a Canadian product, a product from Nova Scotia or from Quebec. This is not necessarily the case right now. We do not always know where the products come from.

Pork producers from Nova Scotia made another observation: when we buy cattle, poultry or pork products, we should pay a premium of, let us say, 5¢, 10¢ a kilo or whatever, to establish a fund—

Livestock IndustryEmergency Debate

11:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

Order, please. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Huron—Bruce.

Livestock IndustryEmergency Debate

11:35 p.m.

Liberal

Paul Steckle Liberal Huron—Bruce, ON

Mr. Speaker, I thank all members who have attended this evening to make this debate a meaningful one. I believe we all bring a sentiment and a feeling to this debate because it is something that is very near and dear to us.

I also want to thank my colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska for having the courage to seek the approval of the House for a debate this evening.

Far too many times we have been called together on emergency debates on the issues surrounding agriculture, not only on the livestock sector, but on grains and oilseeds in the recent past. We need to find some long term solutions for an industry that we all love so dearly and also depend upon. Surely all of us as consumers know that we must have a consistent supply of food, and we know that in our country we have a consistent, constant, safe supply of food for our consuming public.

The issues have been addressed a number of times this evening. There are many reasons why we have depressed prices in the cattle industry and the pork industry.

For those who do not know, I must tell members that I come from a long line of farmers. My history in agriculture goes back many generations. I have spent almost all of my years in Ottawa on the agriculture committee and I have worked with some very fine people on both sides of the House during those years.

Most of us share a great deal of passion for what we believe is a very important industry. I have heard some very passionate statements this evening. If some of this evening's statements had some real meaning to them and we could believe them, we probably would not be here tonight.

When I heard the parliamentary secretary this evening, for whom I have a great deal of respect, speak about the way money is being delivered, I would have to think that the farmers would be pretty much involved in carrying cheques to the bank, but that is not what I am hearing.

Farmers are indeed in trouble. I could list a whole series of situations that have occurred in my community over the past number of weeks, particularly in the last couple of days. People I have known all my life, people who have farmed all their lives, are turning the key.

Tonight there may be some farmers watching us. I am interested in seeing what kinds of messages we get tomorrow morning from that community of people we are representing tonight. I will be interested to see whether they will be telling us tomorrow morning, yes, they received the cheque, or no, they have not received the cheque, or they have been given notice that there is money coming.

I think our programs have failed us. However, as we talked about hearing in the 2006 election, we were told that the CAIS program was going to be abandoned, that the government would get rid of it. We did get rid of the name for some parts of it. Occasionally that name crops up again, but I see some wordsmithing being done there. Basically not a lot has changed in terms of the way money is delivered. A CAIS program in part that used to be 6% is now 3% and only 50% of the margin. It is not quite exactly what we used to know as the CAIS program, which was a very good program.

Ontario used to have a program called GRIP, or the market revenue program, as we know it. Colleagues from across the way who are from Ontario know what I am talking about. They were good programs. Those programs delivered. They were constant. They were there. Not only was government involved in the changing of those programs, but so were farmers. Farmers were very much involved in that period.

What has happened in the beef industry particularly, and to some degree also in the hog industry, is the concentration and the balkanization of ownership of the packing facilities for the animals. Not only do they own the packing facilities, but the fact is that they also own the animals going into the slaughterhouse. Basically what we have now are employed feeders of these animals. They may wear a Cargill coverall. They may wear something that reads Smithfield in some parts, although not in Ontario, of course. It might be Tyson if they are in the poultry business. If they are in the hog industry, they might have a maple leaf ensign on their coveralls.

This is where we have gone. This is where we are once we have the concentration. In Ontario we had one major beef packing plant that was sold out to a multinational, which is now the Cargill plant, and there are rumours in my part of Ontario that the plant may eventually be gone.

To suggest that because they have a short supply of animals going into the plant, it would cause them to raise the price, it does not work that way. They have plants in the west and they have plants in the United States, and therefore they can send a lot of the animals, which is already happening, to the United States of America.

Last week the plant in Kitchener was short 500 animals on Friday, but it did not raise the price. It did not go out looking for anymore. How can small time farmers compete with that? They just cannot compete with that.

We have those kinds of concentrations that are taking place, and ultimately, we will find an industry that is no longer farmer-controlled and owned. It will be controlled by the multinationals, as I said before.

I know that in the past, we have looked at what the packers did. We do not have to go back very far, to May 1993, and think about the experience of BSE striking our industry. The committee did a lot of work and we did a lot of work in trying to get money to farmers.

The way that money was delivered, in hindsight, was not done in a way that was most effective because a lot of that money was clawed back by the packers, but we in turn, as a committee of the day, went after the packers because we wanted to know what was going on in that industry.

We knew what was going on, but we had to have the facts, so when we asked for these kinds of statements to be provided, there were three packing companies which would not provide the books.

Those three packing companies were found in contempt of Parliament and therefore, as a penalty for being found in contempt, we decided that we should maybe fine these people a substantial amount of money. We in committee agreed unanimously that we would come to the House the following day, which was four days before the election of 2006 was called, and ask the House for unanimous support to fine these packers.

The gentleman who is now the Minister of Agriculture met me at the corridor outside this room and told me that his members had withdrawn their support for that, and they were not going to go forward with that.

I think as people in government, we have to have the courage of our convictions to go against some of these large corporations. I also believe that if we want to go forward, we have to start thinking outside of the box. I believe food security is as important to this country as is our military security.

If we believe in a foreign policy that we should be in Afghanistan, and I believe we rightfully are there and we should stay there for awhile, we should also understand that we need food security to feed our people in this country.

We have, in this country, 10 provinces and one federal government competing as to how we can best deliver programs. If we look to the south for some direction, we find that the U.S. has one farm plan. We have to start looking at other ways.

When we are talking about looking at new ways of doing things, we have to look at possibly the federal government being responsible for Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada for the Canadian people. I really believe that and sometime in the near future we are going to have to look at those things.

I have neighbours who have resorted to driving a truck. One guy told me just a few days ago that his farm is now for sale. I could not believe it, but his farm is for sale. We have a desperate situation and that is why we are here this evening.

I trust that after we conclude our discussions this evening, we will go down in history as having been a group of politicians who gathered this evening to find and make changes for our industry because we believe it is important. I trust that all of us will forget our partisan ways and move forward in trying to do what is right for the industry because I believe it matters for all Canadians.

Livestock IndustryEmergency Debate

11:40 p.m.

Conservative

Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Huron—Bruce for echoing some of my comments. I am also glad to hear him say that he supports our troops in Afghanistan.

I should point out too that our ridings share borders. Our ridings are next door and we have very similar ridings. We work together. We have to work together and that is a good thing.

My question is regarding the CAIS program. The member said that the CAIS program was a very good program. I guess he has had a change of heart because not very long ago, he stood beside me and criticized the CAIS program.

When this government first got elected in 2006, we did say that we wanted to get rid of the CAIS program, or at the very least make some drastic changes to it, but unfortunately, it was in conjunction with the provinces and we could not do that. Would the member agree with that statement?

Nevertheless, we have made changes there, so obviously, I would like to ask him why he has changed his support for the CAIS program, compared to what he was saying not that long ago?

Livestock IndustryEmergency Debate

February 13th, 2008 / 11:45 p.m.

Liberal

Paul Steckle Liberal Huron—Bruce, ON

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound. We share borders. If we look at the bigger part of his riding, he has a few more cattle than I do in my riding. He indeed has the bulk of the cattle in Ontario when it comes to a particular riding. I have a few more hogs than the hon. member.

On the question of CAIS, there were always issues with CAIS that I did not like. The negative margin issue was one of those issues. There were many other issues, of course. The delivery was always a problem because, in Ontario, we have to go through Agricorp, as he well knows. There was always a delivery issue.

My greatest beef with these programs has always been that these programs take so long to be delivered. And again, getting rid of NISA was never something that many of us agreed to. It was one of those situations where the provinces, those that were involved in that program, decided to get out of it. The west basically got out of Agricorp earlier, in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, and that was the reason for them pulling away from that program. Those are the reasons for it.

I think we have to understand when a program is right, no matter which government brings it in, we need to support it.

Livestock IndustryEmergency Debate

11:45 p.m.

Bloc

Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC

Mr. Speaker, in the course of the debate, we have often heard that the opening of new markets in other countries, such as the Philippines or Korea, could be a solution to support or encourage producers. I find Koreans quite lucky to be able to eat Canadian beef, because at the IGA in Ormstown, I cannot buy any. I eat American beef and pork. This is the downside of free trade.

I still believe that the government would have the means to inform consumers and to help them make well-informed choices. Among other things, labels could be more efficient, informative and equitable.

Does the member share the opinion that the government should be encouraged to establish quickly a system where labels would provide clearer information to consumers?

Livestock IndustryEmergency Debate

11:45 p.m.

Liberal

Paul Steckle Liberal Huron—Bruce, ON

Mr. Speaker, yes, indeed, we need clear labelling indicating a product of Canada, not a product that is a substitute product from China with other dilutives added so that it can be called “product of Canada”. Apple juice concentrate from China does not constitute a Canadian product. That is an example of what I am suggesting.

I think we need clear Canadian labelling that it is grown, produced, packaged, all of those things, in Canada, giving Canadians a clear choice: if they want to buy a product from this country or from Chile.

On the question of free trade, using Korea as an example, 130,000 cars into this country and 75 cars out of this country does not constitute, to me, a fair trade with Korea. I think we have to understand that we can produce a lot of trade, but unless it produces wealth at the farm gate, it really does not achieve its ultimate goal.

Livestock IndustryEmergency Debate

11:50 p.m.

Conservative

Bev Shipley Conservative Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague from Lévis—Bellechasse. I will not take up much time because we are running against the clock.

Tonight everyone acknowledges that we have a crisis on our hands in terms of agriculture. When we look at the futures in the hog industry, as one individual said, in beef we can see a light coming, but I am not so sure it is not a train, but in terms of the markets in the pork industry, we can see a light coming and that is an improved market. We have to work toward that.

I farm. I come from Middlesex County in Ontario. It is one of the most productive areas in agriculture. Having the same background as my colleagues across the way, it is important to recognize that the significance of agriculture in this country is second to none in terms of the security of it. With that, we need to work together.

As my colleague from Huron—Bruce indicated earlier, we had a program that was working well in agriculture. Unfortunately, the Liberals decided to dissolve that program. The NISA program and the market revenue within the provinces were working well. Then we got stuck with the CAIS program, which works well for some. The problem is that is a program that is not fair. Some people get it and other farmers cannot seem to counter it.

When we indicated we would get out of it, that was a strong move and an indication by the farmers that they did not want it. What we found out, though, is that we needed the support of the provinces to get out of it. Support from the provinces to lead Canada away from that type of a program was not there. We have been able to bring in agri-invest, which is a contributory program with a $600 million kickstart that began this year. There are good programs on the way.

I want to emphasize that we cannot look at just what we have on our plate today. This is an emergency debate tonight, but it is also about sustaining an industry. When I talk to farmers, one of the things they tell me is not to bring in a program to assist them that will countervail them. As we go back to look at ad hoc financing and programs for agriculture, that is one of the issues: money is just thrown at it. My colleague from Malpeque is always on about where is the cash. Well, cash is not always the answer if it is going to countervail farmers. I know there is the theatrics of it all, but I also know he is very sincere about the agriculture industry.

We have to put our heads together and work with the minister to make sure we have a program that is going to sustain our industry for a long time. It is always easy to criticize, but we have to look back and see that it is always cyclical in agriculture. I have always said it is hard to get agriculture running on all eight cylinders.

Earlier tonight it was mentioned that during the last 13 or 14 years, 75,000 farmers have left. It is not just an issue right now. It has been an issue in the past and we need to figure out how we are going to sustain it for a long period of time. The people on my side, along with the people involved with agriculture, are about getting solutions, which is why we had this debate tonight.

I am going to cut off my speech here because I want my colleague to have a few minutes. If there is time at the end, I would be glad to take a question.

Livestock IndustryEmergency Debate

11:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

The way the time slots are structured, we have to have a period for questions and comments.

I see the hon. member for Malpeque is rising.

Livestock IndustryEmergency Debate

11:50 p.m.

Liberal

Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE

Mr. Speaker, I will try to be quick because I know another member wants to ask a question. Maybe we could go over the debate by five minutes.

I ask the member to look at the record and the eight proposals I made earlier this evening. In addition, we have the proposals from the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. He will find that none of those proposals are countervailable.

We heard earlier in the evening a lot of rhetoric, mostly from the various parliamentary secretaries, on what old Liberal programs or new Conservative programs do.

In terms of the balance in industries in crisis, under the last Liberal program, $800 million was targeted for the grains and oilseeds industry. The parliamentary secretary talks about the kick-start program as the next best thing to sliced bread. What will it do for the hog industry? It will put out to the hog industry $60 million.

The previous government put out $800 million targeted at grains and oilseeds. The Conservative government is putting $60 million out to the hog industry as a little share of that kick-start program. Does the member think that is balanced? Does he think it will deal with the crisis?

Livestock IndustryEmergency Debate

11:55 p.m.

Conservative

Bev Shipley Conservative Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON

Mr. Speaker, I remind the member that when we got in, the money was not necessarily designated. We were the ones who delivered it.

However, the member talks about money. He says that the eight proposals are not countervailable. I suspect we would have to look at that. It may be a personal opinion, but I am not sure.

Livestock IndustryEmergency Debate

11:55 p.m.

Liberal

Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE

I rise on a point of order. That was a different program. The $800 million was before that one.

Livestock IndustryEmergency Debate

11:55 p.m.

Bloc

André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful that a number of members stayed until the end of this emergency debate. That shows how important this is. However, I would have liked to hear more from the government side, although toward the end we did hear a few more enlightening and interesting speeches about the crisis that is affecting pork and beef producers. I hope that the minister will hear about everything that has happened here, that he will take it into consideration, that he will take note and that he will act.

Some comments were made a little earlier this evening. I would like to know whether the member agrees with Bob Friesen, the president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, who said recently about this crisis that the federal government needs to show some leadership now and do what needs to be done, that all the announcements made to date have been about program funding already announced and committed, and that the solutions recommended by the industry are being ignored.

Solutions have been proposed by the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food and producers themselves. Will the member promise to present them to the minister and see to it that they are implemented?

Livestock IndustryEmergency Debate

11:55 p.m.

Conservative

Bev Shipley Conservative Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON

Mr. Speaker, to reiterate, when we talk about what will go out, the kick-start, for example, will put $160 million into these funds, which go to the hog and cattle industry. Those funds are going out now.

Livestock IndustryEmergency Debate

11:55 p.m.

Conservative

Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Because we are running out of time, I respectfully request of the House, because the member has been here all night, that maybe we could sit for an extra five minutes if the rest of the members present would be agreeable.

Livestock IndustryEmergency Debate

11:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

Pursuant to an order made earlier this evening, we are not allowed to entertain requests for unanimous consent or those kinds of motions. However, I do appreciate the hon. member's intent.

It being midnight, I declare the motion carried.

(Motion agreed to)

Livestock IndustryEmergency Debate

February 14th, Midnight

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

The House stands adjourned until later this day, Thursday, at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24.

(The House adjourned at 12 a.m.)